JUDGMENT

Civil Appeal No. 3811 of 1990 Adjourned to September 1, 1993.

Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1987

2. It is stated by Sri Sumant Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent, Dilip Kumar Dey has since been acquitted by the trial court. The statement is recorded. In view of this statement, this appeal must be deemed to have become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Criminal Appeal 146 of 1987

3. No one appears for the State of Bihar, the appellant. This appeal is preferred againstthe judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Cr1. WJC 164/86. The respondent had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition complaining that his right to speedy trial was infringed by the inordinate delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution launched against him. The writ petition was allowed by the Patna High Court and the proceedings quashed.

4. A few relevant facts may be stated. The respondent was the Director of Mines, Government of Bihar. A raid was conducted on his premises and certain amount of cash and Jewellary recovered. On March 27, 1978, a preliminary charge-sheet was filed under S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substance of the charge was that the respondent was in possession of assets beyond the known sources of his income. On December 15, 1982, the government of Bihar refused to grant sanction for prosecuting the respondent which was required. under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For that reason - or any other, as the ease may be no final charge-sheet was filed. Yet the proceedings were kept pending. It is in these circumstances that the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition which was allowed. We are also told that in the criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, this Court made an order on November 23, 1987 permitting the parties to lead evidence with the restriction that no further proceedings shall be taken in the matter. Taking advantage of the said interim order, it appears, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the State Government on March 29, 1990 but it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, no statements of witnesses were recorded in the case. Meanwhile, the respondent retired from service on November 30, 1991.

5. It would be evident from the above narrative that the prosecution launched in 1978 is pending even today and yet the examination of the witnesses has not begun, though the final charge-sheet is said to have been filed in April 1990. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the disproportionate assets alleged to have been possessed by the respondent is in the region of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the delay in conduct of the case has been caused by the accused-respondent. From 1978 to 1986 and again from November 1987 till this day, there has been no progress in the case. Not a single witness has been examined so far. In these circumstances, following the principles enunciated in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 , the judgment of the High Court is affirmed and the criminal appeal is dismissed.

SLP (C) No. 15131 of 1990

S.L.P. is taken on board.

7. This S.L.P. is directed against an order of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent (accused in Cr1. A. 146/87) against the order of sanction dated March29, 1990. In view of our orders in Cr. A. 146/87, this S.L.P. has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.

Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1987.

8. This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the order of the Patna High Court quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the inordinate delay in proceeding with and concluding the prosecution case against the accused has defeated his fundamental right to speedy trial. A few facts may be noticed.

9. In the occurrence that took place in the village concerned herein, on April 9, 1993, one Nand Kumar Singh received